The world faces serious humanitarian and environmental challenges. Honest science is needed to overcome these challenges.

The goal of science is to understand Nature to understand the world in which we live. Science is based on independent and objective measurement of Nature. Science then develops understanding consistent with proven laws of science

Development of the scientific process enabled humanity to begin escaping political bullying, the rule of superstition and the cowering to fear and ignorance. Science helped free us materially, emotionally, mentally, politically and spiritually.

It is essential that we protect science and the scientific process.

In section 1, Scientific Untruths readers discover corruption of science from allowing politicians, bureaucrats and vested interests to control science's funding and focus.

Now it's time to let Earth speak. Listen to Earth by exploring real-world science. We start by examining basic facts on carbon dioxide.

Each molecule of CO2 combines a carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. Every cell of living organism contains carbon, essential for all life on Earth.

CO2 is 0.0385% of Earth's atmosphere. That's just under 0.04%, or four 1/100th's of 1%. Or 1/26th of 1%. In every 2,600 molecules of air, only one (1) is CO2.

CO2, like oxygen, is a naturally occurring colourless, odourless, tasteless, invisible gas, non-toxic in concentrations many times levels in air, and essential for life. Unlike oxygen though, CO2 is only a trace gas.

Although CO2 is intimately mixed in the atmosphere, it is one and a half times the weight of air. It's relative heaviness means "it finds its way to the sea surface as surely as water flowing in a river". (Bob Beatty) The oceans cover 71% of Earth's surface.

To learn more about the fundamentals of CO2 interacting between ocean and atmosphere visit this site:
www.bosmin.com/HenrysLaw.pdf
Quote: "It does not matter how much CO2 is pumped into the air, it will always find an equilibrium concentration ... always dependent on the sea temperature."

And this site: www.bosmin.com/SeaChange.pdf
Note the effects of ocean temperature, salinity levels, ocean convection currents, atmospheric winds. Conclusions are provided on pages 29 and 30. Note conclusion 9.8, quote: "Ocean temperature has a dominant influence on the level of carbon dioxide gas present in the atmosphere".

Seasonal and other intra-annual natural variation in CO2 levels within each year is far greater than inter-annual variation between years. ie, variation between years is far less than the variation within each year.

Palaeoclimatologist Professor Bob Carter's excellent book 'Climate: the Counter Consensus' explains the huge errors in estimating CO2 levels, and then states quote: "One estimate, by Canadian climatologist Tim Ball, is that the human production of carbon dioxide (7.2 Gt C/year; IPCC, 2007) is more than four times less than the combined error (32 Gt) on the estimated carbon dioxide production from all other sources' ... 'even were human emissions to be reduced to zero, the difference would be lost among other uncertainties in the global carbon budget. What is presently missing from the public debate, then - and it is not provided by computer models, either - is an appreciation of both the small scale (in context) of human emissions, and the range of uncertainty in the carbon budget.' Pages 70-86.

After release of ice core research data proved temperature drives CO2 levels, advocates of human warming acknowledged temperature rises lead CO2 increases. Yet claimed that once CO2 reaches a certain level it takes over as the driver.

That's interesting. If CO2 is such a powerful driver of climate, what caused the CO2 levels to then plummet cyclically? How do they explain seasonal driving of global CO2 levels by temperature?

CO2 is a consequence of temperature, not a cause. Seasonally and on a lag of 400-800 years, CO2 levels follow temperature.

Earth has had three main atmospheres. During Earth's current atmosphere, CO2 has been far higher in Earth's relatively recent geological past. Scientists estimate that 550 million years ago it was as much as 18%, 470 times higher than current; 250-320 million years ago it was 1% (26x); 100 million years ago it was 5% (130x). Larger birds and even pterosaurs flew in Earth's past because the atmosphere was then denser. The atmosphere and its constituents vary naturally.'A Short History of Planet Earth', by international award-winning geologist Plimer (2001), page 128.
Jo Nova references Berner and Scotese claiming that 550 million years ago CO2 was between 0.4% - 0.8%, 20 times higher than currentlywww.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

CO2 is not a 'pollutant'

CO2 is a natural and essential component of Earth's atmosphere. All vegetation depends on CO2. CO2 is not black soot as depicted by the ALP state government; it is colourless, odourless and non-toxic. It is a key component of our food cycle and our food. We exhale it. It's in our fizzy drinks. It's used in medical procedures. Like oxygen, carbon dioxide is essential for our life. Carbon is in every cell of every living organism.

During the last 100 years, corn yields have increased six fold in part due to science and in part due to naturally increasing atmospheric CO2 levels.

CO2 is not changing Earth's balance. CO2 is not overabundant. CO2 is non-toxic. CO2 is not a pollutant.

CO2 is essential for life on Earth - a perfect revenue base for controlling people

Although not a pollutant, CO2 it is the ideal tax base. It is intimately part of human respiration, an essential part of our food, in every cell of our body, fundamental to all life on Earth, and the key to affordable energy.

More enticing for politicians wanting to control, it is difficult to measure human production of CO2 at the source (factories, proportion of coal-fired electricity, cows' backsides, human respiration, belches, ...). This makes it ideal for using surrogate measures and proportions controlled not by measurement and science but by political whim and dictate. It provides perfect control of people and our activities.

How can human production of CO2, being just 3% of Earth's annual production, be harmful? It cannot.

Nature's 97% production of Earth's annual CO2 production is a wonderful blessing essential for all life on Earth. How can humanity's 3% be harmful? It cannot.

Especially when the variation alone in Nature's CO2 production is more than all human output?

New Satellite Data Contradicts Carbon Dioxide Climate Theory. The author John O'Sullivan is a science writer, legal adviser and contributor to the team that produced the acclaimed book "Slaying the Sky Dragon".

After gradual slight cooling from 1958 through 1974 the media exploded with headlines implying the end of the world due to supposed forecast imminent, irreversible, catastrophic global freezing - blamed on human use of fuels containing carbon, such as coal and oil.

Now our government wants us to believe that the opposite forecast catastrophic consequence - warming - was caused by the same supposed culprit, fuels containing carbon.

The UN IPCC forecast rising atmospheric temperatures. Weather balloon and satellite measurements are the only known measurements of global atmospheric temperature. These show no net warming, just inherent variation in natural cooling, warming, cooling cycles.

Contrary to the UN IPCC's computer model projections, there is no hot spot in the atmosphere. Atmospheric temperatures are not rising abnormally. Since 1998, temperatures have been flat or falling slightly. In the last four winters many parts of the world have endured record cold winters
The missing hot spot:sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf

Ground-based recordings are proven to be faulty. They have been inaccurately measured, unscientifically manipulated, selectively used to increase apparent global temperature and exaggerated by use of the Urban Heat Island effect in cities where hot engines, bitumen and concrete replace cooling vegetation.

Independent findings show that even the USA meteorological office's temperature records have errors of up to 5 degrees at many stations and that 90% of stations do not meet standards. Yet America's records are the world's most accurate.

There is concern that temperature measurement stations have been removed from the compilation of global temperature to inflate temperature. This concern seems justified.

The UN IPCC's global average temperature is meaningless because it uses only corrupted ground-based measurements. Yet oceans cover 71% of Earth's surface. The UN IPCC data is biased toward city temperatures and excludes many rural measurements and those in colder regions, swamps, mountain ranges, deserts, and tundra.www.uoguelph.ca/%7Ermckitri/research/nvst.html

Temperature changes have been less than half a degree, so slight that the human body cannot detect it. Temperature records before the 1980's are highly inaccurate because older thermometers could not read to an accuracy better than 1 degree - not 1/10th as claimed.

D'Aleo's paper shows with simple diagrams that temperature does not correlate with CO2 over periods of several decades. Scientific studies show global temperature does closely correlate with ocean-atmosphere oscillations and to a lesser extent directly with solar activity. Climate is complex.

Brian Leyland's forecasts of temperature based on Southern Oscillation index are proving accurate. The UN IPCC's computer projections are hopelessly in error. Leyland uses science, while the UN IPCC relies on politics to drive its models.web.me.com/bryanleyland/Site_3/Global_Cooling.html

Antarctic ice shelves not melting at all, new field data show

Twenty-year-old models which have suggested serious ice loss in the eastern Antarctic have been compared with reality for the first time - and found to be wrong, so much so that it now appears that no ice is being lost at all.

"Previous ocean models ... have predicted temperatures and melt rates that are too high, suggesting a significant mass loss in this region that is actually not taking place," says Tore Hattermann of the Norwegian Polar Institute, member of a team which has obtained two years' worth of direct measurements below the massive Fimbul Ice Shelf in eastern Antarctica - the first ever to be taken.

According to a statement from the American Geophysical Union, announcing the new research:

It turns out that past studies, which were based on computer models without any direct data for comparison or guidance, overestimate the water temperatures and extent of melting beneath the Fimbul Ice Shelf. This has led to the misconception, Hattermann said, that the ice shelf is losing mass at a faster rate than it is gaining mass, leading to an overall loss of mass.

The team's results show that water temperatures are far lower than computer models predicted ...

Hatterman and his colleagues, using 12 tons of hot-water drilling equipment, bored three holes more than 200m deep through the Fimbul Shelf, which spans an area roughly twice the size of New Jersey. The location of each hole was cunningly chosen so that the various pathways by which water moves beneath the ice shelf could be observed, and instruments were lowered down.

The boffins also supplemented their data craftily by harvesting info from a biology project, the Marine Mammal Exploration of the Oceans Pole to Pole (MEOP) effort, which had seen sensor packages attached to elephant seals.

"Nobody was expecting that the MEOP seals from Bouvetoya would swim straight to the Antarctic and stay along the Fimbul Ice Shelf for the entire winter," Hattermann says. "But this behaviour certainly provided an impressive and unique data set."

Normally, getting sea temperature readings along the shelf in winter would be dangerous if not impossible due to shifting pack ice - but the seals were perfectly at home among the grinding floes.

Overall, according to the team, their field data shows "steady state mass balance" on the eastern Antarctic coasts - ie, that no ice is being lost from the massive shelves there. The research is published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

This is good news indeed, as some had thought that huge amounts of ice were melting from the region, which might mean accelerated rates of sea level rise in future.

Disease incidence and severity are not increasing. Science is enabling reductions in disease apart from those areas where UN politics has corrupted science such as malaria.

Do you wonder why more people choose to take holidays in warmer climates? Ever wondered why there are far more deaths from extreme cold weather than from extreme warm weather?

The forebears of humans and higher order species alive today evolved and thrived in temperatures 2-3 degrees warmer than today. That includes polar bears. We and most of Earth's species prefer warmer temperatures.'Climate: the Counter Consensus', Professor Bob Carter, pages 38-43, figure 1.

Warmer temperatures increase diversity of species. This makes life easier for animals, including polar bears.

We are fortunate to be living in a warm period. It won't last forever. People misrepresenting climate are preventing funds from being spent on the real climate challenge - how to adapt to cooler temperatures. What will the poor do? Will our political systems cope with people facing freezing? How much will food and crop yields decrease with temperature?

Despite spending an estimated $100 billion dollars on research since the 1980's no evidence of any human impact on global atmospheric temperature has been found.

Three differing scientific groups on the Greenhouse Gas Effect Theory/Supposition

In honour of its namesake, The Galileo Movement encourages debate, preferably based on accurate real-world observational data and consistent with the laws of Nature. We welcome diversity of opinion and value integrity in resolving differences scientifically.

Basic questions on the UN's claimed greenhouse warming mechanism are in Appendix 19 of a report into CSIRO here. For the direct link to Appendix 19.

There are three broad scientific views on the UN IPCC's greenhouse gas effect theory/supposition. There are eminent scientists in all three groups. The links provided in each group are merely starters for those wanting to explore. Readers with more effective links are invited to send them to The Galileo Movement.

Members in the second and third groups agree that there has been no significant warming due to human production of CO2. Both see claims of human causation of warming as being based on faulty science or corruption of science.

Healthy dissent and debate are at the heart of science's quest to understand Nature. Respectful dissension can stimulate higher learning beyond what could be achieved without dissension. Objectivity is assured by access to and verification of real-world data and by consistency with proven laws of Nature/science.

True scientists are sceptics

When given new data or theories, true scientists immediately take a sceptical position. They request access to the data and the proponents' methods. They audit both data and method. They scrutinise consistency with existing laws of physics. If they can replicate the conclusions without error, the theory is accepted. If not, the theory is rejected.

Scepticism is a fundamental part of science and a fundamental responsibility of scientists.

There is no real-world evidence of unusual global warming. There is no real-world evidence of human causation of temperature rises. There is much real-world evidence proving human activity did not cause global warming.

Post-normal science - the modern political cancer

Riddled with corruption, 'post-normal science' has replaced science. 'Science' has become a political tool and weapon to control people. Unless stopped, misrepresentation of 'science' could return humanity to the dark ages.

Real science relies on consistent repeatable observations of Nature combined with proven laws of Nature. This can be supplemented by use of computer models, providing the models are based on fundamental factors that are well understood.

The models fail because they use an assumed outcome and faulty relationships to produce results aligned with the political agenda that drives them. Their core premise that CO2 levels drive temperature is false. In Table 2-11 of its 2007 report, even the UN IPCC itself admits that of 16 forcing factors on which the models depend, 13 have low or very low levels of understanding. The sole factor for which the UN IPCC claims high level of understanding is disputed in the real world and contradicted by real-world data.

The models omit or poorly model many significant climate drivers, including clouds and microphysical electrical aspects of clouds known to explain temperature variation far greater than those measured in the atmosphere in recent decades.

The models are thus destined to be erroneous and their projections repeatedly fail.

Yet the UN IPCC and government base their claims on computer projections, wrapped in words implying the claims are supported by real-world evidence. Models have become the tool to produce what is falsely implied to be 'evidence' of the politically necessary outcome.

Post-normal science is practised by the United Nations with support from political and academic financial beneficiaries. It is characterised by:
- Opinion and belief replacing objective evidence. That advocates of human causation of global warming cite 'scientific consensus' shows ignorance of science. Science is determined by data and verifiability in the real world, not by marshalling of opinion. Politics depends on consensus or power of position and numbers. Regardless, there is no such consensus. The claim it exists is false and reveals further ignorance or dishonesty;
- Appeal to authority to legitimise falsehoods and to prevent scrutiny by media;
- Smearing those who dissent even though scepticism is a fundamental part of science;
- Failing to provide real-world evidence;
- Using emotive language and glossy publications to imply evidence that does not exist;
- Condensing complex topics like climate and the Murray-Darling River Basin into simple but false claims that are easily understood and difficult to later dislodge using real science's complexities;
- Penalising and preventing genuine research. Scientists failing to comply with the UN IPCC's position are denied research funding and even employment. Many dissenting scientists have been shut down;
- Directing research to produce outcomes aligned with political objectives implied by government funding. Refer to McLean's references in this web site's Section 1, The Corruption;
- Uncertainties are either grossly underestimated or ignored when the aim is to produce support for political agenda. www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG_7zK8ODGA
- Entrenching authority and trusting government despite personal and political agenda;
- Use of propaganda techniques such as repetition of falsities and implying association with entirely separate known facts. eg, implying CO2 caused global warming by presenting accurate data on humanity's large tonnages of CO2 production without mentioning Nature produces 32 times more and while avoiding data that CO2 is less than 0.04% of Earth's atmosphere.

It's significant that in the topic of climate, almost all errors are in one direction - to overstate global warming and human contribution. This is statistically highly unlikely and thus appears deliberate and systematic.

These and other tools are used to control information and prevent dissent. Science has become a religion and a political tool.

Bodies such as the Australian Academy of Science and prominent universities' climate institutes have been formed to tap government funding. Despite their cleverly worded implied claims these fail to provide any real-world scientific evidence of global warming caused by humans. It seems that some academics think glossy publications and vague statements implying human causation can replace real-world science.

Yet we're paying taxes to give these institutions grants to supposedly research climate.

It seems they merely take the money and become unscientific advocates for government taxes. We pay, they play, so we can pay even more taxes.

Yet science originally ended political bullying while freeing humanity from superstition and persecution. It's vital we return to real-world science.

Basic understanding of variation is lacking in UN IPCC's claims

The UN IPCC's claims demonstrate faulty understanding of variation. The UN IPCC seems to not understand, or misrepresents, the difference between 'process changes' and 'inherent variation'. As in management, this leads to wasting resources chasing inherent variation in the delusion it is a process change. It means that such resources are diverted from real problems and opportunities.

In a world with significant real environmental challenges and enormous humanitarian challenges, the opportunity cost of the UN IPCC's falsities is huge - and deadly.

Until the advent of climate corruption, science was focused largely on exploring our world to understand Nature and unlock her secrets for improving people's safety and lives. The UN IPCC and its political forces and associated aligned interests now say humans control our planet. Science is now being misrepresented to disrespect Nature.

The UN IPCC's efforts disconnect humans from Nature. Yet we are a product of and part of Nature. Individually and as a civilisation we benefit from confirming, appreciating and celebrating our inherent ties with Nature.

Futility

When Nature's annual CO2 production is 32 times greater than humanity's production and is recognised as a life-giving blessing, how can human production of CO2 be catastrophic ? It cannot - human CO2 is beneficial.

Nonetheless, lets assume human CO2 causes warming:
Lets consider percentages and rough proportions of molecules. The latter accurately depict the order of magnitude.
Proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere: less than 0.04%, actually, 0.0385%. That's roughly 1 molecule of CO2 in 2,600 molecules of air.
Proportion of Earth's annual production of CO2: Humans 3%, Nature 97%. In the long term, that's roughly 0.0385 x 0.03 = 0.0001% or 1 molecule in 85,800 molecules of air.

Australia's share of global human production is around 1.3%. Lets assume it will increase, say 1.5%
Australian CO2's share of Earth's atmosphere is 0.00001733%, that's 1 molecule in every 5.7 million molecules of air.

Wait, we're not finished. If the government succeeds in destroying the economy by cutting Australia's production by 5%, that would reduce Australian human produced CO2 to 0.00001646%, that's 1 molecule in 6 million molecules of air.

According to Professor Tim Flannery, the government's Chief Climate Commissioner, after considering the growth in population and the economy from the year 2000 to 2020, the 5% cut in CO2 production would be 26% per person. That's slicing more than one quarter of the economy to reduce Australian human CO2 from 0.00001733% to 0.00001646%.
(Comments made at Climate Commission's Ipswich meeting, Thursday, April 7th, 2011)

Using broad calculations, this leads to a temperature drop of 0.0000005 degrees, half of one millionth of a degree. If all nations cut CO2 output by 5%, that would reduce temperatures by 0.00005%, half of one ten thousandth of a degree.

All of these are far less than the accuracy of temperature measurement which is really only +/- 0.1 degrees C. It's many times less than the inherent natural variation in Earth's temperature. It's far less than the temperature difference when a cloud passes overhead.

He earlier forecast that Brisbane and all mainland capital cities would be out of water by 2009. It's now 2011 and the problem this year is too much rain. Brisbane's dams are overflowing. That's one of many failed and unfounded alarming forecasts.

Not just futile, deadly

When confronted by lack of real-world evidence for their claims, some advocates claiming human causation of global warming cite the Precautionary Principle.

That states that the risk of not doing something about supposed human global warming is too high. They imply that there is no damage by taking action even if action is not needed. The precautionary principle says the cost of doing something is much less than the cost of not doing anything.

The cost of reducing global human production of CO2 by 5% would be trillions of dollars. The benefit is zero.

Thus the cost:benefit ratio would be infinite. As internationally eminent American meteorologist and UN IPCC contributor Professor Richard Lindzen says, quote: "who could possibly argue that Australia's proposed actions would have any discernible impact on Australia's climate. Nonetheless, there seems to be (government) support for a policy where the cost benefit ratio is essentially infinite. Why is that?"

The UN IPCC's predictions are false. Pushing a price on carbon dioxide can have no impact on temperature. Remember, on a seasonal basis and with an 800-year lag, CO2 levels are a consequence of temperature not a cause.

Even if human production had a miniscule impact on atmospheric CO2 levels, how can Australia make any meaningful impact when Australia produces 1.0-1.3% of all human production of CO2? How could it have any impact while just the annual increase in human CO2 from China alone is greater than all CO2 produced by Australians?

Where else could those trillions be invested to protect humanity and the environment? Curing HIV-Aids, ending starvation and malnutrition, improving third-world access to clean water supplies, curbing real pollution of air, water and soil, giving the poor access to cheap, reliable electrical power, ...

Those claiming humans caused global warming are diverting valuable finite funds from research into ending the greatest humanitarian threats. Proponents of human causation of global warming are sentencing tens of millions of people to needless misery or even death.

The cost benefit is horrendous.

Will you stand by idly and allow the irresponsible uncaring sentencing of millions of people to unnecessary hardship and even death?

Challenge to a debate

The eight Australian academics prominent in promoting human causation of warming are challenged to debate publicly at a mutually acceptable venue with a mutually acceptable chairperson. The debate will include:
- The UN IPCC - the basis of the government climate policy
- Real-world science - the only sound basis of climate policy
- The economics - the impacts of climate policy
Followed by an open forum for audience to hold speakers accountable for data sources.

The government's Climate Commission is holding sessions around the country to convince the community of its case. Based on personal experience attending the Climate Commission, it's not a conversation it's a contrivance. It's not presenting science, it's misrepresenting science. It's not educating communities, it's misleading communities.

We challenge the Climate Commission to jointly hold a second session the day after or day before its community events.

This debate challenge is addressed to any of the eight Australian academics prominent in promoting climate alarm.

Discover for yourself

Given that the 'science' is corrupt and there is no real-world evidence for the UN IPCC's claim and much real-world evidence that humans cannot affect global climate, browse this web site, check links for yourself, visit other sites and make up your own mind.

Forgiveness

Please help restore scientific integrity by ending misrepresentation of science

Please help us access mainstream media to inform the public of the real-world science so people can be reassured that climate fear and guilt are unfounded and that integrity can be restored to science. You can make a donation here.

Please ask your members of federal parliament to take action to end the corruption by demanding a royal commission or independent judicial investigation requiring evidence under oath to investigate the corruption of science. Offer them your vote and support if they vote against any carbon dioxide tax or 'trading scheme'.